> I have a feeling you're going to have a problem with any kind of "general" technology in the future.

I can agree to the argument that "everything can be used in a bad way". But that is not my point.

My point is: is any technology always worth existing? As a thought experiment, I can easily imagine a technology that would only be useful for torture, and I would consider it fundamentally evil. To the point where I would not want this technology to exist at all.

If you agree with that, then it means that it is possible to imagine a technology that should not exist. And consequently, it raises the question for every new technology: should this one exist, or not?

There is a big difference between having a degree in theoretical physics and a theoretical degree in physics.

In real life, the ones that humans actually occupy true black and white situations almost never exist. Your last sentence will always fall afoul of "In my moral framework" and since moral frameworks differ between cultures and individuals you will always find disagreement on the question of worth. The idea of fundamental evil is not a scientific measurable concept.

To turn around your concept and reverse the danger. I see any non-Christian* as fundamentally evil and it is my moral and just duty to remove any non-believers from this planet in order to preserve the sanctity of what is good.

At best we can make a rule of laws at attempt to fairly balance the needs of others and attempt to deter actions that are so dangerous for society they cannot be allowed. But never believe that your rule of law is universal.

* replace with whatever religion/belief system suits your needs.

Hmm...

Of course, the question of whether a particular technology is good or evil requires a moral framework, that's a necessity from the "good or evil" part.

Now those who say "technology is neutral" imply - if I understand correctly - that technology is out of this discussion. They think that the use of technology can be good or bad, but the technology itself is neither.

And that is what I question: should we consider that technology is completely out of the moral debate, or not? Obviously if we conclude that it is part of the moral debate, then it depends on the moral framework. In this case, the technology behind deepfakes was developed by people that I am convinced don't approve of the use in the original article.

So it seems legit to me to ask whether those people questioned the technology they were developing, within their moral framework, before doing it and releasing it to the world.

Am I missing something?

>So it seems legit to me to ask whether those people questioned the technology they were developing, within their moral framework

I mean, it's a useless question of pedantry. It rarely changes the outcome.

I cannot say that I am a free speech absolutist, there are many people that write software that are, and in addition believe that software is speech. Which particular rules of this framework do you want to apply? I think greedy people that value money above all else are terrible, but they exist and create software regardless of your abohorance of doing so.

> I think greedy people that value money above all else are terrible, but they exist and create software regardless of your abohorance of doing so.

That would be assuming that the people who built the technology bringing deepfakes are such people, which I would question.

Maybe they just don't think about the consequences of their work. Maybe there is something to teach to engineers about ethics. I'm saying that because I feel like personally, I could have use some ethics class. Maybe it would have given me some keys when thinking about all that.